Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 193

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 190

Archive 191

Archive 192

→

Thought experiment - bot-assisted protection

This is a thought-experiment for now, but I want to get some feedback before going forward.

If there was bot that, on command from editors on a whitelist, would semi-protect or protect an article for up to 24 hours and post a note to an administrative noticeboard, would this be useful? What criteria would be needed to get on the whitelist, short of a full RfA? Are there any other issues of importance?

Why a bot? Because I've been told a code change would be a nightmare. The only downsides to a bot vs. a code change is the editor's Special:Contributions wouldn't show use of the bot, and of course, someone has to write and run the bot. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitelist construction

Desired whitelist criteria: Generally experienced and trusted, hasn't tried to break the wiki, approval by any crat possibly after a lightweight RFA, revokable at any time by any crat. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Other issues

Desired restriction: Bot would not allow protection if editor edited that page or its talk page in the last week per WP:COI. Bot might only allow it if the page was mentioned by another editor on an ANI page or was on a page-whitelist. Bot would also keep a page-blacklist. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea all around/not needed/waste of effort

Interesting Idea, but WP:RFPP pretty much already serves this same purpose. Not only that, it seems a bit complicated and unnecessary with users having to be approved to be on the whitelist, let alone someone having to write a bot. This might also have the potential to be abused if used for the worse in content disputes/conflicts. Frankly, I think having a human sysop accepting or declining queries on a case-by-case basis at WP:RFPP works just fine. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
RPP is not broken, so there's no need to fix it. This proposal doesn't really belong on this page either, it's not really about RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with the above. A valid and thought-provoking idea, but I don't think it's really necessary. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Agree with Beeblebrox. Too much effort for too little gain. @Kate (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
This is, at best, tangentially related to the RfA process.
While I, as an editor, don't think this is much of a solution for anything, I, as a bureaucrat, would like to see it go somewhere else. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This would quickly end up becoming redundant to RFA because there wouldn't be a much lower degree of trust required (the way there is for rollbackers). That is, if we trust people to be protecting pages, we can pretty much trust them as admins. delldot ∇. 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The standard for trust to protect or unprotect is, IMHO, much lower than the standard needed to do things like see deleted edits. The best argument I've seen not to do this now is that it is not necessary, that is, admins are not faced with a backlog in this area. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a question of whether the big majority of the community agrees, enough to pass people through the approval process that wouldn't pass RFA. I expect this to trend toward higher standards, the way RFA has, but it's possible that it wouldn't. delldot ∇. 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The standards for RfB, interestly, have gotten a tad lower. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

True, but I assume you meant RfA? :) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The RfB remark was a point of trivia. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

A human will always be better than a bot. We have no shortage of humans willing to do the job; no need for a bot. (I do think we need more admins in general, though). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 05:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Soap, among others. Moreover, I oppose giving any bot the mop. Admin actions require human judgment. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Long, but actual Story as a demonstration why it's unnecessary

The instant I saw that idea I thought, "oh, that could be really fast at the right times", then also realized a Whitelist would be ridiculous, and eventually realized it wouldn't actually help the existing system in any way. As a non-admin, having to sit around really hoping disruptive IPs or sock crews will just stop doing something or maybe accidentally hit a flag of some sort that gets them listed somewhere else. It's not as bad as watching a magic wand taken to your user page, but still no good. We're throwing the dice for a time frame on confirmation, decision and possible protection. We know this. No one expects instant service. To actually keep the page protected short-term it needs to be sat at. The magic button in anything but the most incredibly basic IPs semi-protect or 1 user temp block cases like this might be simpler. Most every RPP is just a tiny bit different, even I can see looking at them.

Relation? On the day of the Fort Hood shootings I realized there was a BLP disaster in the making and went to see if I could steal and bully anyone else trying to change the article for the actual factual correct spelling of the name of presumed suspect and wait for my full protect request to go through; 72hr requested, let an actual fact-base article be written without the word "Terrorist", preferably. That alone, and/or use of the word "Muslim" or "Islam" when placed in the same article as "mass murder" and not necessarily with the required "alleged" added? Bad. Lawsuit-level bad since we're a very misunderstood Encyclopedia. Who knows how many might have caught even 1 absolutely awful diff. Even worse, the exended family was contacting media to explain some things. Nooo, not here. Bad. Wikipedia is not a news agency. Actually, besides a link to Jimbo's user page, it's almost a journey to contact Wikipedia at all. I find this is good. Anyway, the Fort Hood article ended up with a ridiculous 225k or so hits in the next 48 hours. I don't want to think about mirrors or reposts or social networking copy-pasting or local tv stations or papers or weekly magazines in a rush to get to the printers using Wikipedia as its only source. Almost certainly in the millions total that had us as their "source". As the number should be zero for something in the mainspace, that's not good. I sat and watched the page for hours, at least 2-3? I can't even remember. I didn't have Huggle access yet to make a custom filter just for the 1 page so I couldn't really stray away. Full Protect did come, no BLP anarchy and no weapons-grade BLP disaster. (♥ Tedder for the save; can't think of much I'd ever be happier to hear from an admin after this.)

My protection request is probably part of what resulted in angry groaning about Wikipedia in some blogs or low-grade media that weekend about how we picky we were about calling all suspects "alleged" (Despite common Western law, common sense and Wikipedia policy with us) and removing words like 'Terrorism' and 'fundamentalist'. We're Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not your-- well. If you're actually this deep into the encyclopedia to reading this, I think you get the idea. I laughed after I found a few complaints that we didn't even had an article of the alleged shooter. I felt a little guilty, but it's BLP and regardless of who it is I don't think I have to listen to anyone outside the community that isn't participating in the article discussion or my talk page. No editor complaints here either, though some misc "huh?" in situation-related ANIs. Nor to Tedder either, I think, since I had to get his back for awhile. People calmed down. We got a solid article that was 100% factually-at-time-of-edit correct and hopefully would offend as few people as possible.

Conclusion: If a Whitelist-based magic protection button wouldn't have helped in a 99th+ percentile level BLP page protection situation because of the exact same time delay and still need a diligent admin to verify my strange request for a mostly-preemptive full protect, I don't mind the current system. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

No current nominations

Yes, there are no current nominations. This has happened before. Those threads would be worth a read before another discussion on the deeper meaning, whether we don't have enough admins, how to find more, etc. etc.--chaser (talk) 07:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, you spoilt the fun. I had a stopwatch ready to see how long it will take for such a thread to come into existence... ;-) Regards So Why 07:11, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, everything is perfectly fine in Wikiland. Why change what is self-evidently not broken. Right? --78.34.233.179 (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't propose WP:RFA for deletion yet. Anyway there have been several nominations in the last 24 hours. But there was so little time open to vote that we must have missed them. You may wish to contact the candidates on their talk pages and give helpful suggestions. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Arguing for reform equals proposing it for deletion. Exact same thing. I sure am glad we have the ~~naysayers~~ sceptics to prevent any ~~bold, but reversible~~ reckless and irreversible actions. --78.34.233.179 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Graeme was obviously not being serious. I also fail to see where you argued for reform. Perhaps it got obscured by unwarranted sarcasm and pointless clever remarks.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, given the American holiday, maybe we should go with one of two extremes for the rest of the weekend: Automatically nominating people when they are autoconfirmed, or locking WP:RFA so nothing can be transcluded. *joke*. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I love how often I can quote "All this has happened before, and all this will happen again" and it still be a valid statement. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

No nominations in about three days. Time to mark RfA as {{historical}}? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that we've not had to mark this talk page as {{hysterical}} by now. Shereth 17:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You could always look back at your time and Wikipedia and find someone you've had outstanding interactions with and nominate them. =) Mkdw ^talk 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to bring out the trump card (me) yet? If so, can people send me the best answers to all the questions? Thanks in advance.--Atlan (talk) 22:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The answer to every question is "Support me before Wikipedia explodes." Shereth 22:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget the ~~only question that count~~liar's question: "Do you promise not to break the wiki?" davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You guys are looking at if from the wrong angle... think of it this way, it's been three days since anybody was attacked for not crossing enough t's or dotting enough i's.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:09, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That starts tonight, actually. iMatthew ^talk at 00:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusually long dry spell... 122.162.176.142 (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked five users who I feel are well-qualified if they want a nomination. Expect five RFAs if they all accept. Secret ^account 14:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Looking on the bright side, November was a solid month at RfA. There were 13 successful RfAs (the most since April) and just 5 unsuccessful RfAs (the fewest all year), discounting the six WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW closures. All that, plus a successful RfB! After that kind of month, an absence of current nominations isn't a big deal. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Heh... I would run, but I would most likely fail considering that I have done almost nothing to change since my last RfA, besides getting a bit more involved in various discussions, particularly here and at AN/ANI. Plus it would be rather soon since my rename, which happened to break the Wiki and cause over 20,000 of my edits to not re-attribute to my new username, while my still saying in my preferences that I still have over 98,000 edits. The thing that should not be 16:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Only the worst sufferers of editcountitis would be concerned about that edit count. Anyway, I threw my hat into ring and was about to answer all questions with "Support me before Wikipedia explodes", per Shereth's advice. But with Secret getting busy, I guess I'll take my hat back and wait before clicking "save page".--Atlan (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

God forbid someone would want their contribution history under a single banner. @Thing, you can bother User:Werdna to manually re-attribute them. –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I would be delirious to support the thing that should not be. Admin is a role that should be taken seriously. If that ever comes up at RfA i would be curious of the results. Which make me think of previous RfAs. Filed by a banned user and then deleted is the best that we have so far this month. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I approached some of the people who demurred when I last approached them; they all are still remaining sane :( -- Avi (talk) 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there's an Eco/PT sock out there somewhere who is getting pretty close to being properly groomed for an RfA. Tan | 39 16:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there is, and he has probably already appeared at a few recent RFAs. It's only been a few months since that whole thing, so I'll start worrying in a few more since only an idiot would run this soon after being blocked. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Two denied, but got one to accept so far. Secret ^account 18:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Yippee, no more drama! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The presence of active RFA's means no more drama?--Atlan (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's more like "better the ~~devil~~ drama we know". Shereth 19:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Haha, whoops. I meant to indicate that people won't be freaking out here. If the power of an RFA could ever completely end drama, the world here would be a different place. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I got three more RFAs that I'm creating today or tommorrow, with another one still waiting for a reply. No more lack of RFA. Thanks Secret ^account 20:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do we need more admins?

If the number of active editors here is static, the total "number of editors" (however defined) is declining, the policies and processes are clearer and the tools are better, then why does Wikipedia need more admins? I'm not trying to be provocative or disruptive about this, I just think the hustings/elections would be more effective if we had some objective data about the need. Have we detected more sockpuppets? Is there more vandalism? Do the best writers need more policing? Will more admins make the encyclopedia a better place? It doesn't seem that promotion to admin is needed to entice editors to stay here, otherwise there would be no shortage of self-nominations. Am I missing the point or are we lacking some fundamental statistics about editing patterns? - Pointillist (talk) 00:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The number of hours spent administrating in relation to the total number of edits per day should be about constant. If we are losing active admins faster than we are losing active editors, then we need more active admins, assuming the average time spent admining and average number of edits per day per editor is nearly constant. Based on some previous discussions, we are losing active admins. On the other hand, some of the admin backlogs are a lot lower than they were a year or two ago. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's the way I see it. too, except that I'd expect the daily ratio of admin-hours to edit-count should fall over time because of greater maturity within the system (backlogs being lower might be evidence of this). I don't reject the possibility we need new admins, but I'd like to know why we need them before I cast my !vote. Wikipedia's ways of working evolved in an environment where admin bandwidth was a scarce resource: our ecosystem might change unpredictably if faced with an oversupply of admins. - Pointillist (talk) 02:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point Pointillist. I believe that since an increasing of the number of administrators wouldn't necessarily hurt the project, there is no harm in having more administrators. I think the only possible harm is that people might be discouraged by the criticism at RFA's or the fact that people think that administrators might abuse the tools. The addition of administrators can also be beneficial because people will be able to go to more people, as older ones leave or lose their privileges. In the end, there is no known harm to having a good number of administrators that we know of. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's timing, not numbers. Since I'm not in the know on numbers, it is encouraging to know backlogs are lower. Often, requests are pounced on faster than you can start up more coffee. Then there are times with bad, bad colors and symbols in Huggle queued together. No one is at fault for any of this. Wikipedia is a volunteer service. Off-peak hours just have a more limited possible "staff", but volume is subject to most variation. Slower responses forms as well sometimes, etc., on top of the RCP. Again, it's no one's fault. Concerns to harassment, inappropriate content added, or vandalism slipping through, of course.

Non-admin actions at incident forums is limited short of submitting more reports, but we can try stop-gap discussion advice and try contacting the involved parties. Overall, it's a stress I'm sure no one likes, especially the "night regulars" I see doing a lot of the admin activities at odd hours. They are the people you should want comments from on this. Do we have any graphs of edits/hour to compare to admin actions/hour? Even if results are confidential, a trend would be nice to know. Lower ratio would imply more admin stress and less time for other things they might enjoy. It'd help all patrols and Huggle users who have more flexible schedules a lot to know the times that are most problematic so we can can best offer assistance :) ...Bot-automated {{wdefcon}} status changes for same purpose perhaps? ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing standards

Looking over some of the older RfA's, say two or three years ago, it seems that some (I stress some and not all!) people were given sysop status simply because they asked for it and because they hadn't insulted Jimbo's mother. These days the sysop candidates have to jump through hoops whilst bending over backwards whilst at the same time holding a perfect, blemish-free, emotionless, record. In short: it was far easier to become a sysop a few years ago than it is now. Daily I see, and I won't mention any names, certain sysops speaking to editors in a way that would get me banned, or at least sink my chances of becoming a sysop for life. They are disrespectful, arrogant, incivil, and sometimes simply rude. But they get away with it because they all know each other and it's like an old boy network.

There needs to be some common ground, some equality of standard. One proposal would be that all sysops should be subject to recall. (If you're thinking about Arbcom then hold on; the old boy network often stops it getting that far!) Another would be that sysop status be granted for a fixed term, say 18 months. (Fixed terms of office work for prime ministers and presidents, for members of parliament and governors, for university departmental heads; in fact the only people that don't seem to use this system are monarchs!) I'm sure that there are many other ideas that would work. Although, I can already hear the protests "It would take too much time", "It couldn't be organised", etc... And I bet those that make these protests are those most worried about their positions post, dare I say it, revolution! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 03:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about recall, but I would love to see admins lose their bit after a fixed period of years, unless they need it by virtue of some other office. Whether this is 2 years, 5 years, or 10 years isn't as important that it be some finite time period. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Some other office? But admin tools are, most importantly, editing tools. The ability to edit protected templates. The ability to move a page over a non-trivial redirect. The ability to delete a category when you create one with a typo. The ability to clean up after a cut-and-paste move. Taking away editing tools that one takes for granted - that doesn't sound like a good strategy to retain editors. Guettarda (talk) 05:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed period adminship is a terrible idea. What happens after that? Those who lose the bit after their term have to re-apply through RFA? This creates way too much bureaucracy. Having to run once is enough hassle these days. Also, I can already see all those editors once "wronged" (read: correctly blocked or topic banned) by an admin running in to oppose. What a mess that would be. I like the system of monarchs you mention though. I really think my kids should inherit adminship.--Atlan (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After the fixed term the sysops should be subject to review. If their work has been up to scratch, e.g. they are still active, they are still being civil, they are not abusing their position then they should be able to continue. This wouldn't create very much bureaucracy; we only have around 1,700 sysops. This user group must be subject to review and should be held accountable for their actions. I could name a few sysops that would be de-mopped if they were subject to a mandatory review, but they're not. Do you disagree that it was far easier to get sysop status several years ago? Do you disagree that some sysops are behaving in ways that would sink their RfA if they were to have to reapply? If not then you suggest a solution... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Lulz. Still upset? Awesome. Tan | 39 22:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC) ← A perfect illustration. Thanks Tan :o) ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sysop bits were basically handed out in the early years (I guess I didn't get the memo). I agree that some of those early admins, if not many, would fail an RFA were they to run today. It just doesn't bother me. If they were breaking the wiki through incompetence, I'm sure we'd know and they'd be quickly desysopped. I also agree with you that admins should be held accountable for their actions, but I feel they already are. Your proposal suggests someone will judge admins after some time to see if they did their job right. Who's going to be that judge? If it's the community, then it'll just be RFA all over again.--Atlan (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure there'd be a way to sort it. Having another RfA isn't a good idea: RfAs seem to be a horrible experience (I've never had the masochistic urge to subject myself to one). Maybe select a jury randomly of, say, 20 users. It should include some Bureaucrats, some sysops, and some editors. I know that the devil is in the detail, but something needs to be done. The system isn't working at the moment. This might make more work, but it would strip out the dead wood. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always room for improvement, but the system is working just fine. You're looking for solutions where there are no problems.--Atlan (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as we all realize we're discussing this with a guy who acts when he has no idea what he's talking about. The especially choice parts of this were "I will be monitoring the vandalism page, and if you continue to conduct yourself in such a fashion then I will be forced to bring your behaviour to the attention of both the Administrators' noticeboard and ultimatly the Arbitration Committee" and "Threats? A simple promise." Threatening to take me to ArbCom because I removed an inactionable AIV report. If there is a more classic example of threatening (my bad: "promising") someone without knowing what the hell one is talking about, please let me know. I bring this up because it fits in nicely to this whole thread - "I don't like some admins (read: Tan et al); there needs to be a good way to get rid of them". Revolution? Not if it means handing over the bit to these characters. Tan | 39 22:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This was three or four months ago. I was very inexperienced at that time. Since then I've taken the time to learn procedures. I will leave any users to fish around the edit histories to see how both parties conducted themselves. You were a sysop and should have known better. I was an inexperienced editor that, although conducting himself wrongly, had a point. You probably don't realise this Tan, but you're illustrating my point perfectly, and I thank you. I've asked you to leave it and move on, but you always seem to pop up and post the same tired old links. I didn't mention your name, or anybody else's. So why take this all so personally? Move on! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ha, Lulz indeed! If you had a point at that time, it wasn't a very good one...--Atlan (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't brought this up in some time. However, as you are literally calling for a revolution, I felt it necessary to point out your complete lack of credibility. Tan | 39 22:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The complete lack of credibility that you perceive. I was inexperienced at that time. This thread was not, and is not, about you. (Although you are an example of what I speak about) The point is we were both dicks that day. I have apologised and asked for closure. You have not apologised and you don't seem to want closure. You have proven my point: you're a sysop and should not be conducting yourself in this way. If you have more to say then I would ask you to take it to my talk page. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How was Tan a dick that day? I'm sorry but I don't see it. Anyway, you say this topic is not about Tanthalas, but you are very much making it that way now. You seem to use him as an example for why this idea of fixed admin terms of yours is necessary. Please elaborate how Tan illustrates your point so well.--Atlan (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

For a start, he's commenting on contributors and not content. If he wanted to get involved in the discussion then he could have discussed the points I had made. Instead he started to insult me: I have "...no idea what [I'm] talking about", he wanted to "point out [my] complete lack of credibility.". Instead of using facts and logic to dismiss my points he attacks me and tries some kind of slur campaign. This thread wasn't about Tan, but he's made it all about him: "...some admins (read: Tan et al)...". ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If I interpret Tan's comments correctly, he assumes you've started this thread, partly or in whole, because of the incident he linked to. He finds that you lack credibility because of it (if that is indeed the basis of this thread). I can't say I blame him and there's nothing wrong with adding that to the discussion.--Atlan (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Well that would be an incorrect assumption. If I had started this thread because of that incident then why didn't I make this post three or four months ago? There might not be anything wrong with adding a link, but there is something wrong with adding personal insults. Just read what was written above: the tone was childish and spiteful. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How would admins who don't want to be subjected to fixed time monarchists? Put fixed rates on adminship isn't a good idea. Admins are people who are trusted to easily handle tasks you wouldn't want to give to a 14-year old kid who writes, "BOB IS STUPID" on articles. They are in no way rulers.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 00:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

(←) Tanthalas practices the kind of in-your-face honesty, that some consider insulting. I don't think it's meant that way. More on-topic: I'm still not convinced, and I doubt I will be, absent any really good arguments.--Atlan (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Then we shall have to agree to disagree. I see that you also prefer the "in-your-face honesty" which most would consider blatant incivility^[1]; so I do understand why you hold the point of view that you seem to do.~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 16:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do on occasion. I'm sure you can see the context in which that comment was written though, and how it is completely different from the normal discussion we are having.--Atlan (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's what Tanthalas bordered on getting into which is exactly what non-admins fear getting smacked by since normal user-to-user conduct is meaningless, pretty much. How much would an admin put up out of the following, each of these filed against you separately at different dispute boards in one evening: 1)Reverted their extremely inappropriate edit with warning non-vandal level2 sent. Vandalism: removing their work without asking or talk page. 2) Same article, +5min: Revert-Revert. Bullying: for repeatedly changing their work. 3) Revert-Revert. 3RR: User has no idea what it actually means and reports after I go 3 and say in edit summary I'm leaving ---Edit warring warning sent to them & automatic talk page sent. Harassment & Hounding: Vandalizing their talk page. --Your talk 4) Massive vandalism after I start removing constant threats and random warning templates. Disruptive editing: Removing their warnings. Send personalized "please" warning asking to stop or I'd report, etc. 5) Bullying: Threatening them. Heads to WQA next. I reply to another user on talk, it's edited out, I revert, and 6) Disruptive editing, reverting their chat messages. Request 15min full protect on talk page for a pause at least. 7) ANI: My insinuating they were abusive asking an admin to protect me from them. --At ANI. User edits or blanks most of my posts ("liar"), and even some of other users. Any new comment get hounded on and edited away slowly.

...They finally get a 24hr block, but from a 3RR violation on the original page since they had once earlier that day I guess. Fix up the ANI... leave it there... return next day, it's marked "Resolved: Content Dispute" ...Die for me, please. Not a single post in words. I'm furious, but it's not worth pointing out to them that there was never any content and I was beaten up for 3 hours straight over 1 quazi-vandalism revert, because the admin would bite and block me for questioning their ability to research a dispute despite obviously not being able to, especially since I spent an extra hour putting up over 20 diffs to the most blatant stuff. Those are all on my record and will hound me at XfAs until the end of time. Other user? A level 4 civility warning, and WQA asks them to stop forum shopping. I'd have been done after any single one of those things if it were an admin or even if it were the admin stalking me. It's known to happen. I can't even leave for the night or I'll get massive blocks since I'm up on 5 dispute boards and need to reply on all of them. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You certainly are verbose Datheisen, I'll give you that. I have no idea what you're going on about though.--Atlan (talk) 11:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

True on both ends, and my apologies. As for why, I'll leave it at "it's complicated", but I know of a few admins that have the same underlying issue that can lead to it. I'm just not adjusted yet, and why I stay at XfDs more. My few attempts at nearly-just-diffs have filed miserably, ha. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, note that back in the day, we needed people to help police the emerging project. This in addition to lower standards helped to cause people to be admitted in higher numbers. Of course we did this before we figured out there some people really weren't all that compatible with administratorship. In the end though, it could be because we are promoting better administrators, although in some ways I believe that this is also discouraging potential administrators. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

More graphs!

Yes, it's another graph. This one is kind of hard to explain, so I'll do my best. It is graphing the percentage of RfAs in a month that have passed. I looked at every single month from Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological), got the number of unsuccessful and successful RfAs, and added them together. I then took the number of successful, and divided it by the total number of RfAs, getting the percentage. On the graph, the red line is each month's percentage. The green line is the average of all percentages in a year, just to make it a little easier to interpret.

This graph is showing an interesting concept. Recently, a lot of numbers have been thrown around. "We've lost X many admins! we had X number of RfAs this month and X this month!" But does that mean anything? Personally, I think that saying RfA is dying because we have fewer RfAs is logically flawed. Yes, we have had less RfAs recently, but that doesn't mean that the process is broken. The rate of successful/total has been fairly steady since 2006. Before then, the standards were lower and people were passed easier.

As was said a few days ago, all the self-pitying threads are starting to do more harm then help. I do think this graph shows a few of the flaws in many of those arguments.

Thoughts? Comments? (X! · talk) · @285 · 05:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

What it shows is that up to the start of this year, 40% of RFAs were successful. From January 35% have been successful. Someone else can do the math to see if that is statistically significant. This indicates that the problem is not that you are getting vastly more bad candidates. The other version of the graph in commons indicates that you are getting significantly less candidates than before. Perhaps you need to conduct a survey (anonymous of course) , find out why people don't run for admin. There's nothing like data. Does Media wiki come with survey tools - if not, I can suggest some good ones. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I wonder what the graph would look like if NOTNOW-type applications were excluded from the data set... In other words, what's the trend in success percentage for reasonably credible candidates? --Orlady (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

First of all, as a mathematician, I don't think that it's possible to have enough graphs ;o) To answer the question: People have lost faith! You put forward an RfA, people are mean to you, people pick apart your every action and every word. You are publicly examined, rated, and criticised. And for what? It's not like you're asking to be left in charge of the nuclear football. The requirements for a successful RfA have totally exceeded necessary levels. At the end of the day, if you're successful, you get some extra tools. But to get these extra tools you have to be a saint, a master editor, a diplomat, and a politician. Many people have come to the conclusion that it's just not worth the bloody hassle! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The successful/unsuccessful ratio, while useful, should be not be analyzed in isolation. (If it really were the one-and-only important indicator, it's interesting that this hasn't been noticed before.) In particular, if good editors are deciding not to be candidates, and so total candidates are decreasing, that's a problem; the graph doesn't say anything about whether this is happening. (It's a problem because the more admins we have, the less stress for each, and the more time each has to do things purely for enjoyment, not duty - which increases the likelihood of their staying around.) And if the number of active admins is decreasing - something that another analysis earlier this year showed was definitely the continuing trend - then a large number of people, myself included, think that there certainly is a problem, for the reasons I mentioned. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 17:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Just saying, I see a lot of admins being accused of unreasonable stuff they never did, but have managed to get there words twisted compared to when I first edited. Not just at ANI, even on the only talk page day after day. That's alot of stress.Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 23:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit filters on admin actions

A year or so ago we had an administrator from another wiki ask for administratorship for a very specialized task. He got the bit but not without a lot of discussion. Some of the discussion was along the lines of "I would be more supportive if we could enforce your promise in software."

Likewise, we occasionally get noms from people who are generally trustworthy and could clearly use the tools correctly in some areas but tend to make deletion-related judgment calls that are too far away from historical consensus for comfort. Some of these editors have promised to be careful when deleting or not delete. Some have passed, some have not.

For de-adminship, ARBCOM sometimes strips the bit, but they could just as easily impose administrator restrictions, like "don't use the tools on these topics" or "don't block these editors." A future community de-adminship process may produce similar less-than-desysopping outcomes if it had the authority to do so and a means to enforce it.

Wikipedia:Edit filter looks like it can be used to restrict the activities of administrators, e.g. allow an administrator to only make a certain number of blocks or deletes a day, not allow him to block or delete certain editors or pages, etc., or even pop up "are you sure"-type warning messages.

While there is a clear benefit to having less-than-full admins as outlined above, it isn't free. The costs include a more complex RFA process and the need for a procedure to add or remove such restrictions. I don't think automated software enforcement of promises made during RFA or conditions imposed by ARBCOM or the community is worth the added overhead right now, but that could change in 2010 or later.

For now, I recommend we use this, but only in limited circumstances:

As a means for something less than de-sysoping, for admins who demonstrate that they shouldn't take particular actions. This will typically be at an ARBCOM level and will be nothing more than a tool for ARBCOM enforcement. However, it might be useful in the "community desysopping" process being discussed elsewhere. This is outside the scope of RFA but presented here because of the audience.

For the very exceptional cases where an administrator from another project needs to use the tool for something that affects both projects. This will be rare, and it will serve as nothing more than software enforcement to a pledge made up-front by the nominee as part of the nomination. Its purpose here is to reduce the drama of such RFAs. Had this been available at the time of the RFA of the admin from another wiki above, I think both the nominator and nominee would've jumped on it, and the RFA would've probably closed with little opposition. The question today is whether this it is a good idea to allow this for exceptional cases, whether its a bad idea, or whether we should table the discussion until the need arises. Its use would boil down to: Did the administrator make a single mistake or do something not likely to be repeated, or does he have a blind spot in a particular area where software enforcement or a software-triggered warning message is appropriate?

I also recommend we keep this technology in mind so as the needs of the wiki change, we have the flexibility to adapt.

Your thoughts? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, every edit filter runs on every edit made by every editor. It would seem strange to create an edit filter that's only going to be restricted to one person and thus only trigger on <<<1% of all edits. That said, such filters do exist, such as Special:AbuseFilter/129, which I believe was created solely to keep track of Bambifan. So there are certainly single persons "important" enough to demand the creation of their own edit filter. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Just off-the-cuff... if we don't trust the admin to voluntary respect the imposed restriction or pledge, what's stopping them from editing it out of the filter? –xeno^talk 16:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Filters on trusted people aren't to protect against intentional acts, they are to protect someone from making a mistake or acting rashly. A good admin with a history of making good deletions when he's doing them one at a time but poor ones after his 5th in an hour would be a good candidate for a throttling filter, for example. Along these lines, administrators who are good with filters may offer to make filters for other admins or editors based on a courtesy request, much like the wiki-break enforcer tools are triggered on courtesy requests. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in this case we need to be mindful of Soap's highlighting of the condition limit. If we extend it to log actions as well as edits then I think it will bring the wiki to its knees. –xeno^talk 18:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see this as a viable solution. If we don't trust them enough, we shouldn't be granting them the bit. In addition, it would be too easy a step from here to arbitrary limits on adminship being imposed regularly. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe (and I just tested with protect, but not with everything) that the abusefilter can, at the moment, only monitor edits, moves, or deletions. In the case of deletions, you can not access any of the page info (except things like the title). So, while it is certainly possible to modify the abusefilter to handle all sorts of admin actions, someone will have to code it. I agree with the trust argument above: don't give people any rights unless you trust them to do what they say. But from a technical point of view, it is not currently possible to create fancy admin filters to monitor anything but deletions, and an admin could change any filter they wanted anyway (because the filters can't block users from promoting themselves to AFE). Prodego ^talk 20:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

admin intervention

I have noticed that most of the unsuccessful RFA'S are being closed by non-admin's i.e. rollbackers, it would be better if an admin would look at RFA'S before they get closed as so to review the candidates eligibility for adminship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul2387 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I assume you're talking about WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW RFAs? These can be closed by anyone who has experience with the RFA process, not just admins... –xeno^talk 17:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, crats are supposed to close RFDs that don't qualify for an early fail e.g. SNOW or NOTNOW. As xeno said, anyone who knows what they are doing can invoke the mercy rule. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

'Crats almost always do close RfAs that don't qualify for an early closure...the only exception is when an RfA candidate withdraws; in that case, it may simply be closed by any editor in good standing. For example, the Salavat, Jeffrey Mall, and Sebwite RfAs from last month were all unsuccessful, but they were closed by bureaucrats after they ran for a week, as they should have been. The only non-WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfA closure that was closed as unsuccessful by a non-'crat last month was RadioFan's, closed by admin SoWhy, and that was acceptable because RadioFan had withdrawn. Looking over the last several WP:SNOW/WP:NOTNOW RfA closures, only one actually was closed by a non-admin (Triplestop, a rollbacker) – Paul2387's RfA. Paul2387 is the one asking the question here...just for the record. And yeah, there's nothing wrong with a non-admin closing an RfA early per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that only bureaucrats and the candidates themselves should close RfAs. If a sub-bureaucrat closed an RfA that the candidate didn't want closing then The candidate would be able to reopen the RfA, right? So the closure carries no power. If a candidate has had enough then s/he will call an end to it. There no real need for anyone else to get involved. If you're not a bureaucrat then ignore it, or oppose. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 21:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that i see Dr Dec's point. If a candidate objects to the mercy rule we really should not force it upon them. There is a clause in WP:NOTNOW for reversal of an early closure of an RfA. My concern lies with the oftimes very quick closure per WP:SNOW that leaves me wanting to vote on an RfA that was closed 2 minutes before i heard of it or while i was writing my !vote. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I also (and probably to someone's incredulity) agree with the some of the sentiment above, although since many of these RfA candidates do not know how to close the RfA, it should merely be plainly shown by the candidate that they wish to end the process. Although I remember why we instituted the SNOW and NOTNOW closures (when someone with 10 edits starts an RfA, there's really no reason to waste anyone's time, including the candidate - it's not useful for them to be told multiple times that they need more experience), I think that NOTNOW has been overused when people start getting sensitive about the candidate's feelings. Limit SNOW closures to the stone cold obvious ones - under 50 edits, etc - and let 'crats decide if they want to close others per NOTNOW. Tan | 39 00:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. Do you think Paul2387's post here is an objection to Triplestop invoking WP:NOTNOW on his RfA? Maybe Paul didn't know he could object to such a closure; we should ask him if he would like his RfA re-opened. The catch is that his RfA was on November 26, a couple of weeks ago, so it might be too late to re-open the last RfA. I'd also like to note that there was nothing wrong with Triplestop's closure; it was a solid decision. But if the candidate is objecting, it should be re-opened. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I linked him to WP:NOTNOW which contains instructions. If he wants it open again then it should be possible to extend it so that it will run for the amount of time that was left. Triplestop x3 02:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked him about it on his talk page here, largely because it's unclear whether he knew the closure was binding. I personally don't think he should re-open it, but if he wants to he should be able to do so. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

On reopening NAC/NBC-closed RFAs: Any candidate whose RFA was closed before the full week and who wishes it to be re-opened should be reminded that doing so shows poor judgment, and he should have a specific, good reason for re-opening. One possible good reason is that there was not enough time for all the good reasons to oppose to be mentioned, and he would like to hear more. A counter-suggestion is that he put himself up for editor review. Therefore, I would generally be against re-openening a NAC/NBC-closed RFA unless a crat is willing to stand up and say that it was closed too early and re-opening it would serve some useful purpose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that a crat needs to re-open closed discussions unless we put my above suggestion into play. For example, this closure was clearly wrong, and was correctly reverted (this particular user has a history (reversion) of this sort of thing). Tan | 39 04:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Tan. While you're right, David, that certain candidates requesting the re-opening of their RfA after a SNOW/NOTNOW closure are showing poor judgement, this is not always the case. And furthermore, unless the RfA has been withdrawn by a bureaucrat, the candidate should be able to re-open if they so choose. The ability to making an immediately binding RfA closure is not an ability that non-'crats like us have, nor should we. Tan is also correct about the possibility of inappropriate non-'crat closures. SNOW/NOTNOW aside, one instance that has always bugged me is WP:Requests for adminship/GrooveDog, which was closed by an administrator, Nakon, after it had run for the full seven days. Even though the RfA would've been closed as failed, I think Nakon should've left the closing to the 'crats on that one. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Paul2387 submitted a new, second RfA and withdrew after three "oppose" votes. By the way, can someone with experience standardize the closing stuff for him? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 14:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Done EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to weigh in (as a bureaucrat), editors that prematurely come to RfA are often unfamiliar with the rules, policies, and general goings-on. However, they are more often than not rather good-faithed; as a result, we should make every effort to help communicate why the RfA was closed, rather than just link to a shortcut. Informationally spartan talk messages[1] do not help do this. If an editor plans on closing premature RfAs, I'd prefer that they use User:EVula/admin/Premature RfA (or something similar) to help soften the blow and keep the line of communication open (this goes for anyone; a 'crat needs to be willing to do this just as readily as an admin or a rollbacker). Telling someone to look for answers on another page is not a valid alternative to providing those answers yourself; if you're going to step up to the plate and close an RfA early, do it well or don't do it at all.

I will say that the RfA matched my personal criteria for a NOTNOW closure (sub 1k edits). The closure was appropriate, but the handling of it was not. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it is a good idea to provide a lengthier explanation of why it was closed. There have been a couple of early-close RfAs which I have left a comment giving more information on why editors may have opposed the RfA had it remained open (for example, Paul2387, The spesh man and MisterWiki). I feel such advice is important - as Evula says, the majority of these are Good Faith self-nominations, and the editors should be encouraged and given advice on where they can 'improve' if they are serious about adminship in the future - and you will note that I always end by praising their keenness/enthusiasm, and reinforcing how important that is to Wikipedia! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for your comments at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC

I'd like to remind interested parties here of the ongoing work on the proposed 'reverse Rfa', Community de-adminship. It has been suggested we wind up our efforts in early January, but that is not set in stone. For those who have not been following this, I submit it is worth a look, and comments are welcomed.

There is also ongoing discussion on what happens after a 'final' draft has been completed, at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC Strategy. Again, your thoughts are welcomed. Happy Holidays to all, Jus da fax 21:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Layout for questions

Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird? This is the only area where we use the format "; ..." for a headline. And what's the use of these headlines anyway? Why bundle questions by the person who asked them? The important thing is not who asked them, but what they're about. That information is currently hidden in the question text.

Speaking of the question text, it is also awkward that it has to be indented. This text is similar in function to the beginning of a conversation, which is always unindented.

So, why can't we just have a simple structure like this:

==Questions ==
=== Q1: Color ===
What's your favorite color? ~~~~
: Red. ~~~~
=== Q2: ... ===

— Sebastian 18:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

That would bloat the TOC needlessly... –xeno^talk 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

How are an extra ten TOC lines a problem on a page that already has hundreds of lines of text? The TOC should be commensurate with the text, and it's common in articles to have sections that are no longer than the questions here. Questions are referred to fairly often, as well they should, because we want candidates to put an effort into answering them. So it would certainly be a benefit if they were easier to find. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I also think that people would get ticked off at that because it would mess with "the system". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean that people don't like change, or "don't fix it if it ain't broke"? That is understandable. But I don't see how this change could mess up anything. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a problem with bloat of the question section in RFA, making each question a subheading could make this worse by adding emphasis. As for signing questions, they are part of the dialogue in RFA and I for one like to know who has asked what. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:15, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. If we have a problem with bloat, then it's that of the RfA as a whole. People naturally have questions and concerns, and if they don't put them into the questions section, they put them into the vote sections. I don't see how the latter is preferable to the former. Indeed, we could even simplify matters and remove a lot of redundancy if candidates didn't have to reply to the same kind of question in so many different places. — Sebastian 16:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"Am I the only one who finds the way we're formatting the questions weird?" Apparently so. I don't find it weird at all. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Good point. If I'm really the only one, then there's no point in dragging this on. — Sebastian 16:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and let me know.)

Well personally I would use a header rather than a ; so you can link to specific questions. If it's ugly in the TOC, you can always limit the TOC to not include those headers. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 15:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

!vote

Why do people write "!vote" (with a prefixed exclamation mark) instead of just "vote"? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Because RfA isn't a vote. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a "not Vote" –xeno^talk 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Tan | 39 19:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Exclamation points are used in some programming languages to mean "not", so !vote is geek-humor for saying "not vote". Wikipedia is largely a geek-dominated society. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:23, 15 Dec 2009 (UTC)

O RLY, I did not know that. :) davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

There's actually a shortcut WP:!VOTE that mentions where it comes from.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:24, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, that's what I was looking for. Tan | 39 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see! Thanks everyone. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There's also our entry for !. Frank | talk 19:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

As well as the entry in the Wikipedia Glossary -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

And, for a chuckle, there's also the corresponding parody at Wikipedia:WikiSpeak. Useight (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

People write "!vote" out of political correctness: it is a vote-while-campaigning-at-the-ballot-box-that-may-be-discounted, but you have to pretend it is not a vote at all. — Kusma ^talk 21:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also the issue that if you don't use the '!' when saying 'vote' you will get someone leaping down your throat exclaiming "This isn't a vote y'know". Quantpole (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The "!vote" term is an abomination. I use the word "vote" fully aware that I generally need to provide some substance behind it if it is to carry much weight. A "vote" can mean a vote as you do in an election, but definition 2 from thefreedictionary.com "To express a choice or an opinion" is every bit as valid. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again everyone! ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...

There's no one currently running, are there any good candidates we can ~~force~~ get to run? Perhaps an organized list would suffice? *looks at certain person* ceranthor 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

We did have one a few months ago on the HACKs list. I'm sure that Secret is stalking a few editors while waiting for the right time to pounce on them and throw them into the pit. Other than that, I don't know of anyone who is interesting in a list right now. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If I standed a chance, I would propose myself. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 05:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Press ganging admins, eh? It conjures up a funny image. But seriously, if no-one wants to stand then what's the point of making them? If they haven't asked for the mop then what means that they'll use it? I guess that one could argue that once they have it they'll find a use for it. But is that what we want? I'd rather see a smaller number of committed and active admins. It's easier for them to act as a cohesive body that way. But that's just what I think... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 11:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree it is not necessary to ALWAYS have an RfA discussion. Consider this the 'crat winter break. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw one editor I just offered to nominate, most others will be well-qualified in a couple of months. Secret ^account 13:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Me! Me! <maniacal laughter> --Hammersoft (talk) 14:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC) -

If anyone is currently evaluating potential candidates for RFA, can I suggest that at the same time you consider them for WP:Autoreviewer? I've set the autoreviewer flag for several editors recently, including one with over 100 articles created and zero deleted contributions. I suspect that there are an awful lot of good contributors out there who are not on the "admin track" as they may not yet have ventured out of mainspace. But you don't need to have demonstrated patience, civility under fire, an understanding of block and ban policy or several other RFA essentials to be the sort of article writer who we want as an autoreviewer. So lets not waste all this evaluating of possible RFA fodder, if RFA being broken means we have to come to terms with a dwindling admin cadre, then recruiting more Autoreviewers and indeed rollbackers is one way we can mask the problem. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Would it be allowed for me to nominate other editors for autoreviewer rights? I could certainly name a few article-writers who don't need their articles patrolled... A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, any editor can nominate another at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autoreviewer. But please check those parts of the criteria that you have access to first. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I nominated a couple of users there. More to come, probably. (Including myself, after I get a bit closer to the suggested number of creations...) A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 07:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

As for finding people to ~~sacrifice~~ nominate, WP:HOPEFUL lists everyone who is ~~masochist enough~~ willing to run for adminship. Have fun checking them. ;-) Regards So Why 16:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

One of the strange things about that is that most people who are worthy to be nominated are not listed, and most people that are listed are newbies who either 1) don't have a chance or 2) are inactive. (X! · talk) · @801 · 18:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly. For example, I have 1,025 edits in October and November, but I'm not on the list. (The threshold is supposed to be 30.) At the same time there are blocked users on the list. Oh, and the page seems to say that there are no current admins^[2]. Not really to useful then. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 19:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You only get on the list if you have one of the userboxes shown on Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls on your user page. There are also 114 peple listed at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching which might be a better place to hunt some new ones down. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, from what I can tell, I think Soap (who declined like a week ago), TheLeftorium, and a couple other users are pretty much ready. I don't feel comfortable myself (the last one having taken place in July) and won't til next year. ceranthor 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I also offered the idea to Tim Song, who didn't feel quite ready yet. He's a strong candidate as well. ceranthor 21:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Three possible good hunting grounds for potential RFA candidates are Autoreviewers, Rollbackers and people who've run before (provided their last run was over three months ago). Ϣere SpielChequers 22:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

... or six months ago to be safe. ;-) Tim meh 23:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

or in my case, 7 months (I'm all of those :). ceranthor 23:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Going back to Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching, I left a suggestion on its talk page (under the title "Tidying up"), that anyone who hasn't updated their entry in 6 months should be removed (and amend the main page to reflect this). I said last week that if there were no objections in a week, I'd be bold and sort it (it would mean that the "older requests" list would go down from about 110 to about 8 - this would make it look less daunting to newcomers). If anyone has any comments on the issue, please feel free to comment on the thread - as I said, if I've had no objections by Friday night (UTC), I'll be bold and do it! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably best just to tag that page as {{historical}}, I believe it collapsed under its own weight. –xeno^talk 18:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think it'll be more helpful when the numbers on the page are reduced tomorrow! Some people have found coaching through it, so I think it is still worth keeping it as active - I'll take the time to remove old requests, etc. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

They have? Then disregard what I said, I thought it was stagnant there. –xeno^talk 19:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Lets just pay each new adminstrator $1000 bucks, and see RFA soar :p. Secret ^account 19:45, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still not running until my agreed (signed contract involved) date. :p ceranthor 20:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I was just taking a look at long-established rollbackers (per the WereSpielChequers suggestion yesterday) and noticed Wikiwoohoo (talk · contribs). Editor since 2005, most recent RfA in 2006 (here). Is that type of editor worth asking, or is s/he too specialist-content-oriented to be considered? Pointillist (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you've missed their run earlier this year. I supported then, but over 40% opposed. I'd hope that those who opposed then would now be willing to review the candidate again, but I'd suggest before considering such a candidate, one should consider the opposes and see if the candidates subsequent edits are such as to address those concerns Ϣere SpielChequers 22:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, you are quite right; I got so caught up excavating the old RfA archaeology and reviewing recent contribution that I failed to check for a fourth nomination. I do apologize for rocking the boat like that: I've no connection with Wikiwoohoo and only found him/her by browsing the rollbacker list. Still, it comprehensively answers my original question. I am hanging my head in shame and would kick my brains to bits if I could find them. My only defence is that I was trying to help.... - Pointillist (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel too bad, there surely are plenty more people out there you can suggest. You should just dive right back into it and find them!

Regards So Why 23:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for those kind words, SoWhy. I won't give up, but I suppose it isn't very likely I will find an appropriate candidate who has really been overlooked. Wie schade! - Pointillist (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my earlier comment, it is about nine months since Wikiwoohoo's last run. I have only checked their edits to confirm they are still active, I have not looked to see if they have addressed the issues that didn't prompt me to oppose but did prompt over 40% of those who !voted in their last RFA to oppose. But I would suggest that before naming a possible candidate here it would be respectful to that editor to check their last RFA and their subsequent activity to see if the concerns of the opposers have been addressed. Ϣere SpielChequers 02:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Of course. As I already said, I made a mistake not checking properly for later nominations. - Pointillist (talk) 08:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, everyone's declining when I ask, so I'm of no help on this end. Plus I haven't gotten anyone through in forever. Wizardman 23:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wizardman, I thought of two wonderful candidates (Wsiegmund, who declined, and Theleftorium). Perhaps you could convince at least one to run? ceranthor 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried with leftorium but that failed. Wizardman 01:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, at this time, I can't really think of too many obviously overdue candidates. ceranthor 01:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to be an Admin please.

Hi People

I would like to be an Admin here on Wikipedia. Thanks!--Barras1 (talk) 08:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Done --Closedmouth (talk) 08:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I loved this. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:29, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he was blocked at approximately the same time as you posted that makes it extra hilarious. rspεεr (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

That, and that this was his only edit. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, he had some deleted contributions to his userpage and user talkpage, but nothing meaningful. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

And it happened again

Everyone, enjoy your hopefully short break from RFA candidate discussions. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 14:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it need an announcement every time? Is there a document we have to file with the government when this happens? Tan | 39 14:50, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

~~Hey, at least it broke the days long silence here. ;)~~Oh nevermind, the arbcom election annoucement did that. The Thing _{Merry Christmas} 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be the Neglect Of Novel, Exciting Workers Attempting Dolorous Minutiae Ignoring Normal Sensibilities form, version 0H-N035, signed in triplicate and delivered to the New Jersey headquarters of Wales, Bass, and Godwin, LLC. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

It took me far too long to figure out what that spelled out. Well played. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

The sky is falling, inactive RFA = doom to the project :p. Acually there's quite a few editors that I see with a few more months of experience would pass an RFA easily. I see RFA promoting 20 - 30 monthly six months from now. Secret ^account 19:08, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

...if they're still around and actively contributing.

Lambanog (talk) 19:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Who are they? Keepscases (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd fill the void but nobody in their right mind would ever nominate me. Still, today's my three year anniversary, I've got over 10,000 edits, and the only time I was blocked (a misunderstanding on the part of the blocking admin) was over a year ago. But, I've seen mice with a better chance of surviving a room full of starving cats than I do of passing RFA. Why? Because RFA's a stupid, silly exercise in popularity. I'm not popular, and I don't give a rat's ass about being popular. Result; I can't be trusted. Anyway, 20-30 passing in one month six months from now? Dream on :) Isn't going to happen. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Tan on this one. It's unbelievably tiresome. Cut it out. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? What's the big deal? An entirely inconsequential comment on the talk page deserves a "cut it out"? -- Renesis (talk) 18:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin coaching

If there really is a problem with there not being enough admins then why don't some of the old guard put themselves forward as possible coaches? As the page says: "Only seven coaches are still active... Requests will most probably be unanswered." I see that quite a few admins benefited from having coaches of their own; many of these previously coached admins being conspicuous in their absences from the prospective coaches list! Maybe it's time for a renewed effort in this area? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really. People oppose admin coaching because it's like training, even breeding users to become admins. Wiki isn't a MMORPG, it's not something people should treat like a game. Admin coaching should be purely educational, when I pursued it I wanted to learn in further detail the things admins dealt with just so I could know them. ceranthor 01:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Breeding users to become admins? That's a new one. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, some bad wording there. I don't take that view, so I guess that was a poor summary. :( ceranthor 01:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Quite funny actually :) Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 01:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

That's seriously, seriously nerdy. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If you want to do something, and you want to do it well, you should learn from those that already poses the skills that you want to master. When I went to university my lectures didn't just leave us in a room alone and tell us to get on with it; saying that we'd learn it as we went along. Of course the theory was backed up by lots of self study. The same goes for when I learned to drive. How is this any different? People that compare admin coaching to MMORPG (whatever the hell that is) or any kind of game are being, IMHO, a little short-sighted. People are going on about there not being enough RfAs, yet training possible admins is a bad idea? Fire-fighters, soldiers, and police officers undergo rigorous training in order for them to be truly competent. Why should this be any different? Except of course that we're not asking admin applicants to rescue people from burning buildings... ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 01:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

As one who is currently going through admin coaching, I agree with Dr Dec - I'm asking an experienced admin to give me some advice and 'training': for instance, I am given example AfDs and asked what the consensus is, and why; looking at my thoughts about wikipedia and its policies and guidelines; given scenarios about pages for RFPP, and judging whether they should be protected or not, and why, etc. It's like a 'pre-school' for an admin - primary school doesn't start until you get the bit!

I must admit that I wasn't listed at Admin Coaching Requests for long, as I proactively sought out an available admin from the list - but others on the list have been approached by admins and asked if they want coaching still. I feel that the list has a definitely palce on Wikipedia. I know that some editors/admins do not like RfA candidates who have been coached (I know of one - No names, no pack drill - who has said that it would predispose them to opposing the candidate) - but many others like the fact that someone has some idea of the issues involved by having interacted with someone who both had to run the gauntlet of RfA themselves, and who uses the tools.

Even if either my coach or myself feel that I should not go for adminship, I think that if nothing else, I will be a better editor for having to think more about policies and how Wikipedia works. From that point of view, I see it as a win-win situation for Wikipedia: it'll either end up with an admin with a little bit more of a clue of what's ahead by virtue of their coaching; or they'll end up with a better editor - someone who will be better at tagging CSD materials, arguing their case in xfDs, knowing when to put a page to RFPP, etc etc.

Finally, I agree with Dr Doc that more admins should do coaching. Even if only 1% of them did it, that'd bring it up to 17 (10 more than are currently active in coaching) - if 2%, that'd be 34: 5 times as many as are currently coaching! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a minor note but we don't actually have 1,700 admins editing. Active admins is more like 1,000 so we'd need a slightly higher percentage. Agree with the general thrust of what you're saying though. Pedro : Chat 09:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Now our only issue is to find that ~1-2% who are willing to coach, believe in the project, have confidence in themselves for the task and can dispose of the time... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think there is a difference between coaching and advising. For example, I share the view that admin coaching increases the risk to have candidates succeeding at RFA that have been "trained" to act exactly as expected from a good candidate but who lack the skills to make them good admins. Adminship is nothing you should "learn" for (to use the school metaphor above), it's something you get after people notice that you became clueful.

Advising on the other hand is a positive way to get people ready. The difference here is the approach. Some adopters have concepts similar to admin coaching, with plans and little exercises. Others, like me, prefer a simple mentor-like approach, i.e. the adoptee can ask the adopter whenever something is unclear to them or whenever they want to have feedback on something they did. This way the user in question is encouraged to learn things themselves but knows that there is someone they can turn to. And I think some people opposed to traditional admin coaching (like me) would be happy to offer to be such a "mentor" to people considering adminship, thus increasing their skills and cluefulness without making them dependent on a certain "coach" (see Maedin (talk · contribs) for example who I cannot praise often enough bear with me! ;-)) Regards So Why 09:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair points, SoWhy - and I agree with the coaching vs advising distinction. However, as a rule I would expect that most editors at an RfA will do a thorough look through the candidate's history/contribs and their support/oppose is based on that. I am fully aware that even if I should get nominated by my coach, whether I succeed or not will be based on what skills I have demonstrated (e.g. my arguments in xfDs, my CSD tags, etc) rather than whether my coach says "He's ready for this". Obviously, people looking through my history will see the responses on my Coaching page (it's hardly hidden after all!) - that may help them to decide if I would make good decisions in those hypothetical situations, but I am aware that those examples there are both hypothetical, and generally not as convoluted as real life situations (for example, there are no examples of either very long xfDs where concensus needs to be decided, or of controversial BLP issues!). So, I would hope (no, expect) people to look at my history in the admin areas and in article editing. And with that, I'm off to get some breakfast and coffee! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like both the massive backlog at coaching and the concerns about prepping people for RFA rather than giving practical knowledge could be addressed by coaching people after they pass an RFA ('new admin school'). I guess a person can coach whomever they want, but it seems like their efforts may go to better use teaching someone who will definitely be able to put the knowledge to use right away (whereas with someone who hasn't passed yet, they may have forgotten what you taught them by the time they pass, or may never pass). I would have liked to have such a mentor when I was a new admin, e.g. to get sanity checks on closures. delldot ∇. 19:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Properly mentored admin

what coaching just to pass RFA produces

I was recently approached by a user I had previously interacted with (and been impressed by already) and have been giving them some "light" mentoring on what is expected of an RFA candidate, but I prefaced the deal with the advice that if I pointed out something and they didn't want to do it, they shouldn't. My goal is to show him how to actually be good at being an admin as opposed to simply passing RFA.I'm not doing any of the "official" coaching things like mock-up AFDs and such, just noting strengths and weaknesses in their editing and dispute resolution experience. Let's face it, RFA can be gamed by those who understand it. Unfortunately the occasional "snake in the grass" is going to get in. We all know this, and it is one of the reasons I have been a strong supporter of a new community based de-adminship process that would allow the community to rectify it's own mistakes in a timely fashion, instead of spending weeks or months doing it through an already overloaded ArbCom. Many feel that RFA is "broken" but I have yet to see any proposals that would work any better, so a quicker way to fix the inevitable errors that will be made seems the best fix to me. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see a straw poll done as to whether the RfA community will support candidates who have been coached. Coaching is pointless if the RfA community will simply deny any candidate who has been coached. If it is apparent that there is support for the program, people will be more interested in volunteering as coaches. Malinaccier (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the community wouldn't care. Weather a candidate was coached or should not be relevant. The community is supposed to asses if a candidate is suitable, not how he became suitable. Since candidates are allowed to submit RfA's over and over, the community supports the view that a candidate can become suitable, and coaching is a mean by which that can be achieved. Eliminating the possibility of coaching, is, in a way, supporting a view that Administrator are born, rather than made. By the same reason, I would support a community de-adminship per Beeblebrox. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 23:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think that the community automatically opposes admin coachees; rather they oppose candidates who treated it as another quest in Wikipedia: The MMORPG. People who go through admin coaching, learn how to be a good admin, as well as gaining experience along the way is all well and good. Those people usually pass handily. However, it's those who join solely to pass RfA that give it a bad name. As such, straw polling on whether or not people support or oppose candidates based on admin coaching would be moot, as almost no one bases it solely on that boolean requisite. (X! · talk) · @020 · 23:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to think you are right that the community wouldn't care, but my recollection is that a non-trivial number has expressed that a coached candidate is an automatic oppose. I remember being surprised. Perhaps it was so surprising it registered as a common feeling, while possibly being a rarity.--SPhilbrick T 02:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

There are people who will oppose because they see coaching as a 'grab for power'; there are people who will oppose self-noms on the same grounds. I hope that if I ever do go for an RfA, people will not look at who nominated me, or if I've been mentored (I think I prefer that to "coaching"), but that they will look at my contributions and either support me or oppose me based on what I've actually done (both in "admin" areas such as deletions and discussions, as well as my work on article space/article talk pages/user talk pages). There will always be some people who will oppose based on various reasons. I know of at least one editor who will tend to oppose someone who has been coached - but even they have said that it is not a definite cause of an oppose, although most likely, as they will look at the candidate's overall performance. Others will always oppose if the candidate self-noms (naming no names, I think most of you will know who I am thinking of). Other will oppose for other reasons - too high an automated edit count, too low edit %age on article space, a blackbird landed on the fence this morning(I'd love to see this quoted as a reason!)... as there are no fixed criteria for becoming an admin, anyone can object for any reason (or no stated reason at all). That is one of the strengths/weaknesses* (*delete as appropriate) of Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who puts an "automatic oppose" is an idiot. RfAs should be evaluated on the strength of the candidate presented, not on the basis of (choose one or more) "Candidate has too many edits to (mainspace|project space|Portal Talk) edits and not enough edits to (mainspace|project space|Portal Talk)!" "Candidate uses a semiautomated tool to help make repetitive edits!" "Candidate self-nominated!" "Candidate hasn't created a (good article|featured article|ultramegacoolbestarticleever)!" "Candidate made a stupid mistake a year ago!" "Candidate sought advice from a coach before requesting to be an admin (what, you think we want people to know what the hell they/re doing? What's wrong with you?)". If you're considering an oppose for one of those reasons, stop, cancel the edit, and go away. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:26, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with this. Automatically opposing someone because of this reasons shows indifference towards both the candidate and the project. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, don't poison the well either. - Mailer Diablo 20:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)